I'm just disappointed that they released the review before playing multiplayer. They admit that the multiplayer is a huge aspect of the game, yet don't give that aspect enough respect to play it before putting their review up.

It's shabby and really not very professional. You want to give the game an 8, that's ok - but play the whole damn game first.

ronuds wrote: I'm just disappointed that they released the review before playing multiplayer. They admit that the multiplayer is a huge aspect of the game, yet don't give that aspect enough respect to play it before putting their review up.

It's shabby and really not very professional. You want to give the game an 8, that's ok - but play the whole damn game first.

ronuds wrote:
I'm just disappointed that they released the review before playing multiplayer. They admit that the multiplayer is a huge aspect of the game, yet don't give that aspect enough respect to play it before putting their review up.

It's shabby and really not very professional. You want to give the game an 8, that's ok - but play the whole damn game first.

I actually wish all, as in every single review, split scores between single and multiplayer because some games I will never, ever, take online. And it's always bothered me that if you included a decent multiplayer game it automatically raises the single player games score you know? A single player game worthy of an 8 plus a multiplayer game worthy of an 8 shouldn't really equal a nine in my book.

ronuds wrote:
I'm just disappointed that they released the review before playing multiplayer. They admit that the multiplayer is a huge aspect of the game, yet don't give that aspect enough respect to play it before putting their review up.

It's shabby and really not very professional. You want to give the game an 8, that's ok - but play the whole damn game first.

SirScratchalot wrote:
I actually wish all, as in every single review, split scores between single and multiplayer because some games I will never, ever, take online. And it's always bothered me that if you included a decent multiplayer game it automatically raises the single player games score you know? A single player game worthy of an 8 plus a multiplayer game worthy of an 8 shouldn't really equal a nine in my book.

+1

I'm quite happy with a separate SP and MP score and feel that it helps me both as a consumer and a person.

But I think the trick is to actually read the review; it's quite obviously stated that Kristan couldn't play the multiplayer much. Fair-dos IMO.

The US reviews quite often seem to score games on a scale from 6-9 never straying into lower scores than 9 for anything with good graphs. In the end it's just needing to find a review source that sort of gels with your own opinion on what matters.

Terminator wrote:
I don't know about the differences, but I now wish I hadn't bothered to read the review here. You just knew they were going to give it an eight and harp on about it no being incredibly new, as if they can't come at it objectively. The first paraghraph even began by whining about hype. Eurogamer reviews can often be likened to a moody teenager.

Edited by Terminator at 20:15:16 07-11-2006

What do you mean? Is objectivity pretending everything is in a vacuum? Game scores can only be set in relation to other games surely?
And just because it's on the subject of hype, does anybody else remember Rise of the Robots and the 9s that absolute crap game received back in the day?

ronuds wrote:
I'm just disappointed that they released the review before playing multiplayer. They admit that the multiplayer is a huge aspect of the game, yet don't give that aspect enough respect to play it before putting their review up.

It's shabby and really not very professional. You want to give the game an 8, that's ok - but play the whole damn game first.

+1

Amateurish.

lmao

Sigh......

Why are you lmao-ing?

I'll tell you why Ja_Long. I'll tell you why. Because you're both being terribly dramatic. Why is it amateurish to hold off on the multiplayer until the game is playable under such a mode? Would it make the difference between "amateur" and "professional" if they'd left the score off and only scored it after the MP had been reviewed? While we're on that distinction, these people do appear to be reviewing games for a job (i.e. "professional").

SirScratchalot wrote: I actually wish all, as in every single review, split scores between single and multiplayer because some games I will never, ever, take online. And it's always bothered me that if you included a decent multiplayer game it automatically raises the single player games score you know? A single player game worthy of an 8 plus a multiplayer game worthy of an 8 shouldn't really equal a nine in my book.

I agree with this actually. I wish that games like LoZ: Four Swords and FF: Crystal Chronicles had gotten a single-player review as well as a multi-player one so I could decide whether or not they were for me. The single-player experience is mentioned, but the review thereof is muted.